linux-kernel - Re: Change signal mask after vfork/clone system call

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 4 Nov 2010 15:45:43 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Gregory Giguashvili <Gregory.Giguashvili@...M.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Change signal mask after vfork/clone system call

On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 15:37:05 +0000
Gregory Giguashvili <Gregory.Giguashvili@...M.com> wrote:

> > Fork on pretty much any Unix like system around today does copy-on-write
> >so while not as efficient as vfork should be fine for most purposes.
> Yes, but the problem is that fork simply does not work when a process has huge resident size and vm.overcommit_memory=0 as preferred by Linux distributions we run on. So, processes with large RSS footprint may occasionally fail fork, even if a tiny process is to be started.
> 
> Using vfork always works, but has the signal mask problem. Catch 22?

And is there a reason you can't mask the signals, vfork and unmask them
again after the parent continues ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/